Senate GOP moves forward on health care bill in dramatic procedural vote

[VISITOR]

WASHINGTON — Over the sound of protesters crying “kill the bill,” 50 Republican senators cast their votes to begin debate to repeal Obamacare on a razor-thin margin Tuesday afternoon. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer — cast the 49th “yes” vote after making a dramatic entrance back to the Capitol, greeted by applause from his colleagues.

Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to begin the debate. No Democrats backed the measure.

Though the motion to proceed is a victory for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, McCain gave a speech directly afterward the vote that threw cold water on the chances that Senate Republicans would emerge in the next few days with a bill that overhauls the nation’s health care system.

“I will not vote for the bill as it is today,” McCain said. “It’s a shell of a bill right now; we all know that.”

He urged McConnell to return to the “old ways of the Senate” — letting senators craft a replacement bill in the regular, bipartisan committee system instead of entirely behind closed doors.

McConnell managed to flip a handful of holdout senators who expressed deep skepticism about the procedural vote and who nearly killed the repeal-and-replace debate altogether two weeks ago. Of about eight of those senators, only Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted against starting debate Tuesday. The rest of the caucus fell into line, including Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who is up for reelection next year in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

But now McConnell faces the daunting task of getting 50 of his members to agree on an actual bill — a project he’s had trouble with so far.

The senators will hold votes on a “clean repeal” of Obamacare that would begin in two years, as well as an updated version of repeal-and-replace that has not been released publicly. They also may vote on a “skinny” version of repeal that would solely abolish one of the Obamacare taxes and the individual and employer mandates without making any larger fixes to the law, according to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that versions of these plans would cause huge increases in the number of Americans without health insurance, which is one reason the GOP’s repeal effort has been unpopular thus far.

“It’s wide open for amendment; different people have different ideas about what form it should take,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

It’s unclear if McConnell will be able to win over 50 senators to back any one of these plans. The Senate’s moderates have sounded skeptical of a repeal-only plan, while conservatives and moderates still have objections to the repeal-and-replace measure. Crucially, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that several provisions of the Senate’s repeal and replace draft would take 60 votes to pass, meaning that bill is effectively dead.

“Obviously we have our work cut out for us,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., a member of the leadership team. “We cleared the first hurdle, but there’s obviously a lot of work to be done.”

During a joint appearance in the Rose Garden with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Trump called the vote a “big win” and predicted it was the “beginning of the end” of Obamacare.

In an earlier interview, Trump acknowledged the difficulty McConnell faced going forward.

“It’s a very, very difficult situation,” President Trump told the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, “because you move a little to the left, and you lose four guys. You move a little bit to the right, and all of a sudden you have a bloc of people who are gone. You have a one-inch road and it wheels through the middle of the valley.”

The Senate will have up to 20 hours to debate and vote on these measures, and then an open amendment process, called a vote-a-rama, will likely begin Thursday. A vote on the final package could come as soon as Thursday night, according to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga

[PaulMys]

I saw this today, Allen.

Sad to say, but bipartisanship is extinct. Maybe if it weren't, the country as a whole would benefit. (What a novel concept, huh??)

What I do know is this: Every time these partisan plans take hold, the price for the average man and woman to obtain and/or keep their health insurance skyrockets.

[JeffM]

In true form McCain sides with Democraps.

[Belair]

I come to AG to get away from the BS of politics. Surely there are other places where this sort of thread is welcome.

[mwoywod]

In true form McCain sides with Democraps.

McCain didn't side with the "Democraps." He could have single handedly killed the GOP bill and didn't. You're right about one thing, it was business as usual for McCain - Assume high moral ground, then vote exact opposite.

[silverfox]

McCains position is that even a lousy bill deserves to be debated so that everybody gets their shot to make amendments. In no way would this bill pass in its present form. The house would reject it as written even if it got that far and passed the senate. It's DOA but will be debated nonetheless. MCCain already said he'd never vote to make the bill law as written. Everybody relax.

[PaulMys]

I come to AG to get away from the BS of politics. Surely there are other places where this sort of thread is welcome.

Not sure you are understanding the "off-topic" aspect of the Off Topic section here.

Just like Sirius radio, this forum is FULL of many different "channels".

If you dislike one, it's extremely easy to "tune out".

JMO

[RippyD]

Probably going to regret this, but... here's the gist of a note I'm sending to Senator McCain and cc'ing several others. He has great health care from his job. He also has Medicare and the VA to lean on if he needed. he has THREE forms of health care, all paid for by you and me. Given his condition (which is terrible, btw), what would happen to him if he didn't? Where would he go for care? What would he do? I don't think he can relate to this.

I make good money and have great health care coverage. But I'm extremely fortunate. My company laid off thousands of people last year. What are they doing? What will they if Obamacare disappears and they're not working? I really don't know.

I'm generally very conservative, especially around spending. In the last three months the actions of the administration and the Congress have completely turned me around on this issue. Trump campaigned on delivering something better than Obamacare, which I agree is severely lacking. I don't see any evidence that this is what they're doing. Better for who? How?

And from a financial perspective, I don't know that having a health care bill that seems more expensive really is in the long term. What's the advantage of having a healthier population? What are the economic advantages? I don't know the answers. I know what we have today isn't working, and that taking health care away from 30 million people has to be the wrong answer.

[PaulMys]

Rippy:

With no party affiliation to hinder my answer, I can say this: A healthier population means an unhealthier pharmaceutical profit.

Do we really need pills for everything?

Oh...... But their advertising will make you think so.

Speaking of advertising.... Wouldn't the billion (yes, billion) or so dollars spent on advertising their pills for erectile dysfunction et al be better served to maybe (Oh..... I don't know......... ) try and fund a fair system of needed drugs?

Maybe existing/experimental drugs for kids with cancer?

Sorry, just one guy sick of seeing every other commercial promising no heartburn, but the only drawbacks are headache, weakness, coma, and the occasional anal bleeding.

JMO

[RippyD]

I don't think a gov't program to give people health care (which we already have - it's called Medicare) is the same as drug companies spending money on advertising. It's their money and it's a free market. I don't want to stop the drug companies from running their businesses profitably. I'm really not sure what the answer is. I asked a Senator from my state what he thought a couple of years ago. His preference is to progressively lower the age requirement for Medicare so that it would eventually cover everybody who needs it. It wouldn't need t replace private health care, just provide a safety net.

Now you can ask "So genius, how do we pay for it?" Yeah... I don't know.

btw, I belong to a party but I have no loyalty. I vote how I like and I donate money accordingly. No party affiliation means no primary voting in my state.